SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/673609 |
Subject | Service |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Decided On | Nov-09-1995 |
Case Number | Writ Petition (C) No. 516 of 1989 |
Judge | K. Ramaswamy and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ. |
Reported in | (1997)11SCC425 |
Acts | Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules - Rule 9 |
Appellant | S.B. Narasimha Prakash |
Respondent | State of Karnataka and anr. |
Excerpt:
-
[k. ramaswamy and; s. saghir ahmad, jj.] - service law — conduct rules — judicial officer — refusal of high court, after considering his representation, to permit a judicial officer to publish a commentary on a statute (karnataka rent control act in this case), held, not illegal -- when the petitioner filed cwp no. 59 of 1988 in this court, this court upheld the vires of rule 9 to karnataka civil services (conduct) rules. the high court had considered and opined that grant of such permission was not conducive.k. ramaswamy and; s. saghir ahmad, jj.1. this writ petition is filed against the refusal of permission to publish a book titled commentary on karnataka rent control act. when the petitioner filed cwp no. 59 of 1988 in this court, this court upheld the vires of rule 9 to karnataka civil services (conduct) rules. since the petitioner being a judicial officer intends to publish the commentary on the above law, this court opined that the high court may reconsider for giving permission. pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his representation on 8-3-1988. the high court had considered and opined that grant of such permission was not conducive. therefore, it declined to grant permission. it being discretionary and the petitioner being in judicial service, we do not find any illegality in.....
Judgment:K. Ramaswamy and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
1. This writ petition is filed against the refusal of permission to publish a book titled Commentary on Karnataka Rent Control Act. When the petitioner filed CWP No. 59 of 1988 in this Court, this Court upheld the vires of Rule 9 to Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Since the petitioner being a judicial officer intends to publish the commentary on the above law, this Court opined that the High Court may reconsider for giving permission. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his representation on 8-3-1988. The High Court had considered and opined that grant of such permission was not conducive. Therefore, it declined to grant permission. It being discretionary and the petitioner being in judicial service, we do not find any illegality in declining to grant permission.
2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.